In a decisive moment for media law, a federal jury determined that the New York Times did not defame former Alaskan Republican Gov. Sarah Palin in a contentious 2017 editorial. The verdict marks another chapter in a legal battle that has stretched over several years and captured national attention.
After just two hours of deliberation, the jury reached its decision, following final arguments presented during the second week of trial in a Manhattan federal court.
“We want to thank the jurors for their careful deliberations. The decision reaffirms an important tenet of American law: publishers are not liable for honest mistakes,” said NYT spokesperson Danielle Rhoades in a comment.
Palin’s Legal Team Weighs Options
While the jury has spoken, it remains unclear whether Palin’s legal team will appeal the decision. No confirmation has been given regarding the next legal steps.
Palin gained national recognition as the 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate alongside the late Sen. John McCain. She first filed the lawsuit against the Times in 2017, claiming the newspaper falsely tied her to the tragic 2011 mass shooting that severely injured then-Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., and left six people dead.
The editorial in question was published in response to a separate incident, the 2017 shooting at a Republican congressional baseball practice that seriously wounded Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La.
Editorial Correction and Apology
Following backlash, the Times corrected the editorial the next day. During the trial, former editorial page editor James Bennet admitted responsibility for the rushed publication. In emotional testimony, he apologized to Palin, saying he deeply regretted the mistake.
Legal History Repeats Itself
This case marks the second time Palin has faced defeat in court over the same defamation claims. In 2022, a federal jury ruled in favor of the New York Times, just after U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff dismissed the case. Despite the dismissal, Rakoff noted that because an appeal was likely, the court of appeals should still have access to the jury’s decision.
In 2024, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan overturned Rakoff’s dismissal, ordering a retrial based on procedural concerns. The appeals court stated that jurors might have been influenced knowing the judge had already ruled in favor of one party.
“We have no difficulty concluding that an average jury’s verdict would be affected if several jurors knew that the judge had already ruled for one of the parties on the very claims the jurors were charged with deciding,” 2nd Circuit Judge John Walker Jr. said at the time.
As Palin’s legal team considers its next move, the verdict underscores the robust protections afforded to the press under U.S. law. While the outcome may disappoint some, it reinforces the legal principle that honest editorial errors, once corrected, do not constitute defamation.
